Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-09-17 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting May 9,2017 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Bjorge,Franceschelli, Rich Members Absent: Kuyper Also Present: Tony Wippler,Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a. MOTON by Rich second by Franceschelli to approve the minutes of April 11,2017. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. 3. Discussion a) Laura Hanks Home Occupation Permit—400 Main Street Ms. Laura Hanks currently has a home occupation permit and would like to expand her business at 400 Main Street. She has a conditional use permit that was approved in 2015 for a home occupation in order to conduct a one-room nail service business within her residence. Ms. Hanks would like to expand her business into a full service day spa including services for hair,nails,massages,facials,waxes, etc. She has provided staff with a business proposal that outlines what she wants to accomplish along with floor plans. The plans show the business would occupy the majority of the main floor and second story of the residence. The main floor would consist of a reception area,waiting room,retail area,nail room,hair room,pedicure room,bathroom, closet and kitchen. The second story would consist of four spa rooms and a bathroom. The livable space for her family would include the upper attic area and the basement. Home occupations are approved as a conditional use and are allowed as an accessory use under residential property. Accessory use is defined by city code as any use customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal structure or use located on the same lot. Staff outlined six criteria that currently make up the home occupation code. a. The home occupation shall be conducted solely and entirely by persons who reside full time in the home. Staff believes there will be additional employeeswho do not reside in the home. For that to happen,the existing code would have to be changed as that is not allowed under current code. b. The home occupation shall be conducted wholly within the principal or accessory structure. The new occupation would still be in the home so would not be an issue. c. No structural alterations or enlargements shall be made for the sole purpose of conducting a home occupation. No structural alterations to the home would be required with the proposal. Additional sinks and other site improvements such as paving the driveway would be done with this proposal. d. Only one home occupation shall be permitted for each principal structure. There is an existing home occupation permit for a one-room nail salon. An expansion would require an amendment to the conditional use permit provided other requirements are met without an amendment to the code. e. Exterior displays or signs other than a two sided,two square foot,non- illuminated sign and exterior storage of materials and exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the residential character of the principal Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 2 structure shall not be permitted. Currently there is no signage. If a sign is desired, a sign permit would be required meeting the criteria. f. The activity does not involve the manufacturing, assembly or distribution of goods and the activity does not deal with the general retail public. The current home occupation was approved as an appointment based business. If the business were to be expanded without an amendment to the code,it would still have to be an appointment based operation. Ms. Laura Hanks, 400 Main Street, stated she has talked with staff about the obstacles,but would like to hear the commission's thoughts. With raising her children she is in need of more income. Her one-room nail salon is great, but would like to expand it further. She would like to open a salon some day and was hoping to do it sooner rather than later. With being in the home she does not have the additional expense of a lease, etc. She is not against moving into the downtown area someday,but right now financially it would be more doable out of her home. All her clients like coming to the house. It is very unique, vintage and repuiposed. Her clients would like to have additional services and have a one stop shop so they don't have to go to neighboring cities. As far as the location, she understands it is just off the downtown area,but she likes that because it does not have the busyness of the main street of downtown,but is just one block down. A lot of clients' husbands will come with them and while the client is getting her nails done,the guys will go to restaurants. They are just close enough to downtown without being on the downtown street. She realizes parking and additional traffic is an issue,but the streets are very wide and there is a lot of traffic there anyway. She can look out every direction of the house and see a business. She realizes she is in a residential area,but is very close to a lot of other businesses. She has looked into ADA accessibility and would probably need a ramp. The doorways on the inside look to be fine, according to what she has read, but she may have to find out more. Commissioner Franceschelli asked Ms. Hanks, when you bring this to fruition,how many additional technicians will be using the space you will be providing? Ms. Hanks stated that is open for discussion, but with the four spa rooms being upstairs,that could be two massage therapists,two skin care technicians, so one person in each room could be renting that space. The main level will have one extra nail technician besides herself and with two hair stylists that would be seven at maximum. Commissioner Franceschelli stated you are currently set up with a home occupation restricted to you being in residence. Are you thinking of having the six other individuals taking up residence in the structure? Ms. Hanks replied absolutely not. Commissioner Franceschelli asked how do you see overcoming that to meet your needs? Ms. Hanks did not know and that is what she needs the commissions' help with. Commissioner Franceschelli commented to staff that is a major stumbling block for a home occupancy. Staff stated it is with the way the code is currently constructed. Commissioner Franceschelli stated so that makes this dream a non-starter. Staff added as far as the additional employees, yes. Commissioner Franceschelli stated if she was taking care of all of these areas at one time,we wouldn't have an issue. He asked Ms. Hanks how do you propose to handle the increase in parking? Now you have six additional vehicles and if they all have a customer,that's six more additional vehicles and you will probably have some overlap with appointments, so now you have a potential for an additional six showing up for a short amount of time. How do you plan to handle that congestion? Ms.Hanks thought she could get vehicles for herself and a couple employees in the garage because that is very large, and they were approved to have a 10 foot cement slab on the west side of the garage. She could have the employees all within the property and the clients would be off-street parking. Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 3 Commissioner Franceschelli stated that might be doable,but asked staff if there was a restriction on the number of parking spots. Staff replied with the home occupation, it is a little different. We don't specifically address off-street parking for a home occupation due to there not being employees and it is appointment based so there would be one additional vehicle which typically would park in the driveway. Commissioner Franceschelli stated now we are adding additional variables to this mix and it is not going to work. Staff stated there are always ways you can make things work, it's just how creative you want to be to make them work. If we do go down a road where we may amend the home occupation permit code to where we are trying to address additional employees,then we do need to look specifically at our off-street parking requirements to find some sort of requirement or structure to make sure there is adequate off-street parking for that type of use. Right now,there isn't a need. Commissioner Franceschelli stated now we are looking at the additional variable of non- residents being technicians or contractors that work for her. That is telling me we have some major research to do. Staff stated it is in conflict with the current code. It doesn't mean that things can't be changed or amended if appropriate. Staff is asking the commission what they feel may or may not be appropriate. Commissioner Franceschelli stated if we make an amendment to the existing code to reflect these needs,it basically grandfathers everyone else who wants to do similar things. Staff stated that is correct, but if someone has an existing conditional use permit for a massage therapist,for example, and we amend the code to be more flexible,if they still plan to expand that business staff would still want them to obtain a conditional use permit amendment for that proposed use to make sure are they meeting what the new requirements are as far as parking,etc. They would still have to go through the conditional use permit process. It is within a residential neighborhood so you want to notify the neighbors and let them have an opportunity to voice their concerns or their approval. That is an important aspect. Then they would still have to meet the requirements of what the code is at that time. Commissioner Franceschelli was thinking it would be a permitted use, but it stays a conditional use and has to be reviewed. Staff stated the code can be amended any number of ways. A lot of communities follow what we do which is a conditional use where there is a public hearing. Others will have the uses identified within the code that are allowed as home occupations and will allow them through an administrative approval process where it is handled through staff. That is not a way staff would like to go because this is in a residential neighborhood and would want to have the neighbors voice their concern or approval of the use. There are a number of ways you can address this,but it is a matter of how we feel this will work in our community. Chair Rotty stated the process to revise a home occupation would be laid out in the ordinance. Commissioner Bjorge was so excited Ms. Hanks is doing so well and is back before the commission. She also was pleased Ms. Hanks didn't just read the code and give up. Commissioner Bjorge goes to neighboring communities for these services and how fun it would be to have this one stop shop close to downtown. In looking at the six requirements, the commission talked a lot about the employees. She asked Ms.Hanks what are your thoughts on the general retail public issue, meaning keeping it appointment based. One of the requirements of the code is that the business does not deal with the general public and has to be appointment based. Ms. Hanks was thinking as far as retail, it would be for the customers that come in and selling them a product. Commissioner Bjorge stated the sticking point is then the employee piece. She asked staff about other ordinances. She liked the flexibility of this home occupation ordinance because it allows us to approve something without having to worry about lighting, screening, etc. She likes that the ordinance is tight. Expanding it would mean we would have to add a parking section. She would like to keep it Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 4 tight and still have flexibility so what balance do other cities have? Staff stated it can be all over the board. As far as employees,more often than not these types of ordinances do not allow for additional employees that don't reside at the property. There are exceptions where codes do allow for additional employees,but that is the exception and not the norm. There is not a list of businesses we allow. Staff would like to discuss that,because in the current code the actual use is very vague. Someone who wants to do tax work,where people are not coming to the house,they are a business,but do they need to go through this entire process when all they are doing is computer or phone work. That is where generating a list of potential uses within the home occupation permit would help staff. Someone who is doing work on the computer or phone, doesn't justify them having to pay$200 to do a public hearing when no one other than themselves will know they are a business. Staff feels home occupation permits should be for hair or nail salons, etc. where people from the outside are coming to the property. Commissioner Bjorge stated if we make a change to the code, it is a change and thinking above and beyond the circumstances should be good policy. Other examples are a law firm, or giving piano lessons. Having seven employees gets a little high, because then you are talking about parking,lighting and probably a sign. She would be comfortable with changing the ordinance to add a specific number. She does not have a number in mind,but seven feels too high. If staff feels we should add a list to the ordinance that may help us come to a number. Also consider would a truck need to come in for deliveries. She likes keeping it tight. Councilmember Craig stated she has been talking to Ms. Hanks about this for awhile. Ms. Hanks has stated seven would be her maximum number of employees. Generally with those types of businesses,you don't have all those people in there at the same time because it is by appointment only. You don't have people back to back. She understood the commission's concerns about parking, but it would be really rare you would have seven people in there at one time because of the nature of the business. Commissioner Bjorge stated that is a great point. Maybe we don't total it out and look at how many are operating in the business at one time. Ms. Hanks stated some employees may want part time rather than full time. Councilmember Craig stated even chiropractors have massage therapists and they are not there full time. That type of business is not a constant stream of customers. It is more sporadic. Unless she got to a point she is so successful, she may want a business. Councilmember Craig stated she is on the EDA so is really for having more businesses in town. This is something that would be ideal because a lot of women would be interested in this and we don't have anything like this in town. Even though it is not in a business location, it is on the outskirts. She would like to see the commission tryto make this work. It would be good for Farmington and would bring people downtown that maybe wouldn't come downtown. If more women found out about it, they may start coming to town. On many different levels this would be a very good business to have in Farmington and we should support Ms. Hanks as well. Being a single mom she is trying to make a living and trying to make a good life for her family. Ms. Hanks did put a petition online which received 180 responses saying this would be great. Commissioner Bj orge asked Ms. Hanks at what point would she be able to move to a storefront, Ms. Hanks replied if she would be able to get her income up in two years,there could be the possibility of moving to a different space. Commissioner Bjorge suggested there could be a transitional opportunity where there is a sunset on the permit. It would help Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 5 ease the risk. Chair Rotty asked if a home occupation permit goes with the property. Staff confirmed it does,because it is a conditional use permit. Commissioner Rich stated we are all encouraged by the progress of the salon and the possible opportunities. Even with that,our interest in that doesn't trump our responsibilities for the city code and the regulations that are there that we are supposed to uphold. We want to be creative and he appreciated having the discussion. If any commission member asks questions that seem tough or challenging,let's keep in mind this is a discussion to see what creativity or accommodations can come out of this. What Commissioner Rich sees unique about this is it is in a transitional area. In the middle of an R-1 residential area,the residents would not support it and our code would not support doing a business like this. Even if one were to buy a house and say we are going to convert it to business use that would not be permissible. After WWII we got into some restrictive zoning and some people think that has killed the home business and the walkability. Nevertheless,that is where we are. So if a person in the downtown area or transitional area were to buy some property and convert it to business use we see a lot of use of that with dental and law offices. What is unusual here is keeping the residential character of it and layering on not just a little bit of business, but a whole lot. He cannot image there are seven salons that one would build. He is surprised there isn't the idea of building out a couple first and building them out as the business grows. The plan looks like it is an intent to fill the space. You wouldn't build it if you weren't intending to fill it and have multiple people there at the same time. Commissioner Rich can see attempting to be as creative as possible for a transitional area like this. It makes sense to do that. It might not in some other residential neighborhoods. So how would we view a dance studio in a home that had eight studio rooms converted to that. Or how about a law office that was in a home,not in a home that was converted to business use, if you had not just one lawyer,but three or four and some paralegals. We would consider that a strong business use and not an accessory use. That is a definition he struggles with;how much is beyond accessory use? Where does the line get drawn? A photography studio. A tailor, He is fond of mixed use and how that has grown small businesses. An insurance agency—would we want to have a neighborhood insurance agency in a home with multiple employees. There is some struggling with the idea of what is supposed to be primarily a home having a business use that seems to be superseding the home without changing the classification of the • property. If we can find a way to be satisfied with those things,maybe there has to be either a sunset or a different sizing. It would be wonderful if you went from a one salon home to a multi-salon business property, but there has to be a migration path there. Maybe minimizing the retail sales. He can't imagine there wouldn't be customers and friends of customers stopping by, with this kind of volume, to pick up their particular goods which puts us in more of a retail store operation. Ms. Hanks stated she could cut that out if that was a deciding factor. She didn't know how much retail she would sell; it would be an add-on. Commissioner Rich stated his final analogy is a tax accountant. A lot of people work from home doing tax filing. What if you were to take your taxes to someone's home and there were seven employees there taking care of all that? How does that either change the character of the community or not fit with the intent of the code? Those are his struggles. He is very favorable to seeing what can be done to incubate this kind of growth. We are in the right area of transitional to justify doing it. But it still seems like bumping the upper limit,if not exceeding it, of how we could call these things accessory and non-retail. He was willing to have more discussion and more research. If Ms. Hanks is at the point where she is ready to grow more,we don't want to hinder that either,but we want to do it in a responsible way for the city. Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 6 Chair Rotty spoke with Ms. Hanks prior to the meeting, and she understands this is a discussion. She asked for the commission's creativity and they would like hear her ideas also. She is very knowledgeable on this and has done her history. He liked the idea and really liked the business proposal. Having said that; it is a business. Ms. Hanks agreed. Chair Rotty stated to accommodate the business it appears we have to do one of two things. One is the zoning, because if this is a business and you were in the right zoning, this discussion would not be happening. The other thing is to amend the home occupation permit. That is something the commission has had a previous discussion on. Part of it was Ms. Hanks' discussion and staff noting we have an ordinance that does not have a lot of details. Sometimes it takes an idea like this and staff will say we have some limitations. Unless we address them with zoning or home occupation,we are a little bound. We cannot say let's throw out the home occupation and everybody do what they want. The residents and the City Council would not like that. If we go down the zoning route,we have a comp plan amendment coming. This area is in the transition. If we look at bumping the zoning to accommodate these or look at modifying the home occupation permit,there is still a process we have to go through. We would have a public hearing so the residents have an opportunity to comment. Then it goes to the City Council and they have final approval. We talked about outside employees and Commissioner Rich mentioned accessory use. A home occupation is supposed to be an accessory part of the house and not the main part of what the house is there for. Then it is a business. We have businesses downtown that have apartments above, but the part with the business is bigger. There is also off-street parking. The time part and transition, in two years if the business isn't ready to move,then the time is up. We could do extensions, but it depends on how it is written. That is something we need to think about. Chair Rotty asked for staff's thoughts on those two options. Planning Manager Wippler stated as far as amending the zoning code, as the commission is aware, we recently approved a downtown redevelopment plan that included this area. One of the outcomes from that plan was looking at the zoning within that study area. What came out of that was there are a number of properties along Elm Street that are residentially used properties,but are zoned as B-2 (downtown business district). That was done in the early 2000's as part of the 2020 comp plan amendment for future expansion of the downtown north and to the east. What came out of the downtown redevelopment plan as far as zoning was to scale back on that zoning and take those residential properties that are zoned B-2 and move them back to either the R-T or R-D zone. It has been 15 to 20 years and the downtown is not expanding as anticipated. Staff did not see changing the zoning as being practical. Staff would be more in favor of amending the home occupation code in a number of ways to not only address Ms. Hanks' potential expansion but also to address some of staff's concerns. Chair Rotty asked to add complexity to amending the code, could it be done based on zoning district. There are certain neighborhoods where you can see different uses. Whereas,if you are in an R-1 and all you see are single family homes, can you do that? Staff stated there are a number of ways to do that. You can outline it where within different zoning classifications you could allow different uses. Chair Rotty would like that,then he could support additional employees, additional off-street parking. That area gets a lot of traffic and some is larger vehicles. That would be something that might be more acceptable. Once you modify a home occupation, it is community wide. If you could do it by zoning district,it might be easier for the commission and the City Council to support some of the deviations. Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2017 Page 7 Commissioner Rich stated perhaps there is another term needed in addition to home occupation. Let's say we have home occupation which is only residents of the home, is there a home business kind of definition we could have for the next step. Home occupation is one level of conditional use. Home business is another level. Perhaps what comes into play there is a threshold of accessory use. For example,no more than 25% of the square footage dedicated to that. He could see this request being ready with one floor in this definition, rather than two floors. You look at the extent of what it takes up of the space, otherwise the home is almost becoming the accessory to the business. If we could find some criteria like that and introduce a new definition, a home occupation could grow into a home business within certain parameters. Commissioner Franceschelli stated so a home occupation with business incubation to allow the original concept of the home occupation to grow as the skills and demand for the business increase until it reaches a certain point where it is no longer home it is all business and needs another place. Right now we are looking at what the maximization of what this structure could potentially be. When in actuality we should be looking at a smaller footprint to allow for growth into the maximization and where that takes it. Commissioner Rich added you always have to have the special permit to test whether the conditions are right. If a home occupation outgrows what it allows,then you have more parameters come into play for this home business and the special use permit for that. Chair Rotty asked Ms. Hanks about her timing. Ms. Hanks stated after receiving approval from the commission, she would have to go to the board of cosmetology and get her salon license,rather than just her nail salon license. She would have steps to take there because she is regulated through them as well. That took her two months last time. Adding the sinks has to be done before their approval. She asked about the handicap ramp. Staff stated that would fall under the building code and a building permit would be required. Chair Rotty stated the commission will ask staff to continue to work on amending our home occupation ordinance. That is not a next week or next month type of deal. They have to find what they feel is the best,there has to be some discussion,a public hearing, then it goes to the City Council. The commission will direct staff to see if there is a way we can legally meet some of these ideas and send them on to the City Council. Ms. Hanks agreed with the timeline. Staff will try to bring an initial draft to the commission in a month or two. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Bjorge second by Franceschelli to adjourn at 7:55 p.m. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant